Description of this paper

Case Law2;Stephen Galls suit can not be dismissed on the strength of Utilitys argument that;water is not goods under UCC, because courts interpreted supply of water as sale of goods;under UCC. Relevant case law is furnished below;City's Sale of Water to Meat Processor Was Sale of Goods Under the UCC;In an action brought by a meat processing company against a city for negligence and;breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, alleging that the water that;the city supplied to the meat processing company contained a foreign substance harmful to;its business, the South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that the city's furnishing of water;to the meat processing company was a sale of goods under Article 2 of the Uniform;Commercial Code ("UCC"). Dakota Pork Indus. v. City of Huron, 638 N.W.2d 884, 886;(S.D. 2002).;The court explained that "[t]he primary inquiry is whether [the] City's furnishing of water to;Dakota Pork constitutes a sale of goods under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code;(UCC)." Id. at *6. It also explained that in Canavan v. City of Mechanicville, 128 N.E. 882 (N.Y.;1920),the New York Court of Appeals examined the sale of water under the Uniform Sales Act.;Case Law3;Under that Act, goods were defined in part as "all chattels personal other than things in action or;money." The court held that "[t]he furnishing of water, through a system of waterworks, by a;water corporation, either private or municipal, to private consumers, at a fixed compensation, is a;sale of goods within the meaning of the statute.... It is a sale of goods as if the water were;collected and delivered in bottles for a price.;References;[1.]Dakota Pork Indus. v. City of Huron, 638 N.W.2d 884, 886 (S.D. 2002);http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/archivecases/dakotapork.html;[2.]Canavan v. City of Mechanicville, 128 N.E. 882 (N.Y. 1920);http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sd-supreme-court/1031163.html;Unjust enrichment embodies a general equitable principle that no person should be;allowed to profit at another's expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any;property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained;Unjust enrichment has three elements. First, the plaintiff must have provided the;defendant with something of value while expecting compensation in return. Second, the;defendant must have acknowledged, accepted, and benefited from whatever the plaintiff;provided. Third, the plaintiff must show that it would be inequitable or Unconscionable for the;defendant to enjoy the benefit of the plaintiff's actions without paying for it. A court will closely;Case Law4;examine the facts of each case before awarding this remedy and will deny claims for unjust;enrichment that frustrate public policy or violate the law.;Present case: Since Schumacher enjoyed the profits of the bar and restaurant without paying;anything to the actual owners, he can not take recourse to principle of unjust enrichment. His;plea is likely to be dismissed.;Case law;DESERT MIRIAH INC v. AUTO INC;DESERT MIRIAH, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. B & L AUTO, INC., and Floyd L. Denning;Defendants and Appellants.;990448.No.;-- October 24, 2000;References;[1.] Calamari, John D., and Joseph M. Perillo. 1999. Contracts. 3d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West.;[2.] Dagan, Hanoch. 1997. Unjust Enrichment: A Study of Private Law and Public Values. New;York: Cambridge Univ. Press.;[3] Hurd, Heidi M. 2003. "Nonreciprocal Risk Imposition, Unjust Enrichment, and the;Foundations of Tort Law: A Critical Celebration of George Fletcher's Theory of Tort Law.;Notre Dame Law Review 78 (April).;Case Law5;No, the contention of the church that the contract was concluded on June 4, is not;correct. After receiving the offer on June 4, the church accepted the offer with modifications.;The reply of the church, in fact, was a counter offer to Pernal. Pernal sent his acceptance for the;amended offer on June 10 and till that is accepted by the church afresh the contract will not be;concluded.;As per contract law, Acceptance of an offer means unconditional agreement to all the terms of;that offer. If you are to accept an offer, you must accept an offer exactly, without modifications;if you change the offer in any way, this is a counter-offer that kills the original offer.;References;[1.]Hyde v. Wrench (1840) http://www.law-essays-uk.com/revision-area/contractlaw/cases/hyde-vs-wrench.php;[2.] Commisioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S. Ct. 715, 719, 92 L.Ed. 898.;(1948) http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/345/345.US.502.508.html;Cantus resignation was accepted by San Benito Superintendent of schools on June 18;itself and communicated to Cantu on the same date. The acceptance was also communicated;when the letter of acceptance was posted with proper stamping.;In this case Cantu is the offeror and the superintendent is the acceptor. When the;resignation was accepted the contract was concluded.;The argument of Cantu that mailbox rule should not be applied to her because she;handed over her withdrawal of resignation in person is not tenable.;References;Case Law6;[1.] Powell v. Lee (1908) 99 LT 284. http://www.law-essays-uk.com/revision-area/contractlaw/cases/powell-vs-lee.php;[2.] Robophone Facilities Ltd v. Blank (1966) 3 All E.R. 128. http://www.atkinsonlaw.com/library/article.php?id=141;The contract law prescribes that the contract should be in writing. In the absence of;written contracts, it is very difficult to prove the conclusion contracts when the matters go to;courts.;In the present case Tinker Constructions promise to Scorge of bonus if the factory;addition is completed on schedule is oral. Similarly his promise to the supplier of machinery to;pay higher price for the machinery was also oral. There is nothing to prove his promises when;taken to court of law. So the promises were not enforceable.;Legal experts opine that oral contracts should be held valid in construction contracts.;There are cases where the courts have accepted oral contracts in construction cases but those;cases involve tangible evidence. In this case the oral agreements are regarding the time and price;which are intangibles. So the oral agreements are not enforceable.;References;[1.]Brian Royle Maggs-V-Guy http://www.atkinson-law.com/library/article.php?id=45;[2.] Marsh and others, CA 7 July 2006;http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2006/08/23/51977/case-law-oral-contracts.html;Case Law7

Paper#32716 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $22

STUDENTS MERIT

CLIENTS’ SUPPORT

MAKE MONEY

CONNECT WITH US

Disclaimer : Studentsmerits.com provides solutions that are custom written and that can only be used for research and reference purposes only. Using this service does not contravene your academic honesty or insititution\'s policies. The following are the ways you are supposed to use our services: (i) As a reference for indepth understanding of the subject. (ii) As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced). (iii) For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution\\\'s definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase). (iv) Direct citing (if referenced properly).